Subject Criminal Law II Case Title Soria v.

Desierto

Topic Article 125 Delay in the Docket No. G.R. No. 153524. | January 31, 2005
delivery of detained persons to
the proper judicial authorities.

Digested by Caren Marie Montelibano Ponente Chico-Nazario, J

Summary

This is a case concerning the alleged violation of private respondents of Article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code. On or about 8:30 in the evening of Mary 13, 2001, Soria and Bista, petitioners, were arrested without
a warrant by police officers for alleged illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. Petitioners were
detained at the police station at Santa, Ilocos Sur. Soria was released in the evening of May 14. However,
Bista was continuously detained. Apart from illegal possession of firearms, it was found out that Bizta has a
standing warrant of arrest for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 6 issued by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC)
of Vigan. Bista was brought to the MTC of Vigan where she posted bail. An Order of Temporary Release was
issued thereafter. Notwithstanding the order of temporary release, Bista remained in the custody of the police
because no order of release was issued in connection with the alleged illegal possession of firearms. It was
only on June 8, 2001 when Bista was released, thus he was detained for 26 days. They filed a complaint
with the Office of the Ombudsman, claiming a violation of their rights due to delayed release. The
Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, and the court affirmed, stating there was no grave abuse of
discretion. The decision emphasized the correct application of detention periods and upheld non-interference
with the Ombudsman's discretionary powers in investigations. The petition was ultimately dismissed for lack
of merit.

Doctrine

Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. - The penalties
provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain
any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within
the period of: twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent;
eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent; and
thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent.

In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed, upon
his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel.

An election day or a special holiday, should not be included in the computation of the period prescribed by
law for the filing of complaint/information in courts in cases of warrantless arrests, it being a “no-office day.”

Facts

● 13 May 2001 – On or about 8:30 in the evening (a Sunday and the day before the 14 May 2001
Elections, petitioners were arrested without a warrant by respondents police officers for alleged illegal
possession of firearms and ammunition;
○ Petitioner Soria was arrested for alleged illegal possession of .38 cal. revolver (a crime which
carries with it the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period) and for violation of
Article 261 par. (f) of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to the Commission on Election
Resolution No. 3328 (which carries the penalty of imprisonment of not less than one [1] year
but not more than six [6] years)
 ○ Petitioner Bista was arrested for alleged illegal possession of sub-machine pistol UZI, cal.
9mm and a .22 cal. revolver with ammunition;
○ Immediately after their arrest, petitioners were detained at the Santa, Ilocos Sur, Police
Station. It was at the Santa Police Station that petitioner Bista was identified by one of the
police officers to have a standing warrant of arrest for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 6
issued by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, docketed as Criminal Case
No. 12272;
● 14 May 2001 – The next day, at about 4:30 pm (Monday and election day), petitioners were brought
to the residence of Provincial Prosecutor Jessica Viloria in San Juan, Ilocos Sur, before whom a
“Joint-Affidavit” against them was subscribed and sworn to by the arresting officers. From there, the
arresting officers brought the petitioners to the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, and
there at about 6:00 p.m. the “Joint-Affidavit” was filed and docketed;
○ At about 6:30 in the evening of the same day, 14 May 2001, petitioner Soria was released
upon the order of Prosecutor Viloria to undergo the requisite preliminary investigation, while
petitioner Bista was brought back and continued to be detained at the Santa Police Station.
From the time of petitioner Soria’s detention up to the time of his release, twenty-two (22)
hours had already elapsed;
● 15 May 2001 – At around 2:00 in the afternoon, petitioner Bista was brought before the MTC of
Vigan, Ilocos Sur, where the case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 6 was pending. Petitioner
Bista posted bail and an Order of Temporary Release was issued thereafter;
○ At this point in time, no order of release was issued in connection with petitioner Bista’s arrest
for alleged illegal possession of firearms. At 4:30 in the afternoon of the same day (15 May
2001), an information for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition, docketed as
Criminal Case No. 4413-S, was filed against petitioner Bista with the 4th Municipal Circuit
Trial Court of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur. At 5:00 in the afternoon, information for Illegal Possession
of Firearms and Ammunition and violation of Article 261 par. (f) of the Omnibus Election Code
in relation to COMELEC Resolution No. 3328, docketed as Criminal Cases No. 2269-N and
No. 2268-N, respectively, were filed in the Regional Trial Court at Narvacan, Ilocos Sur;
● 08 June 2001 – petitioner Bista was released upon filing of bail bonds in Criminal Cases No. 2268-N
and No. 4413-S. He was detained for 26 days.
● 15 August 2001 – petitioners filed with the Office of the Ombudsman for Military Affairs a
complaint-affidavit for violation of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code against herein private
respondents.
● 31 January 2002 – After considering the parties’ respective submissions, the Office of the
Ombudsman rendered the first assailed Joint Resolution dated 31 January 2002 dismissing the
complaint for violation of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code for lack of merit;
● 04 March 2002 – petitioners then filed their motion for reconsideration which was denied for lack of
merit in the second assailed Resolution dated 25 March 2002.

Issue/s Ruling

Whether or not private respondents (Members of the No. The complaint of petitioner Edimar Bista against
Philippine National Police) violated Article 125. the respondents for Violation of Article 125, will not
prosper because the running of the thirty-six
(36)-hour period prescribed by law for the filing of the
complaint against him from the time of his arrest was
tolled by one day (election day). Moreover, he has a
standing warrant of arrest for Violation of B.P. Blg. 6
and it was only on May 15, 2001, at about 2:00 p.m.
that he was able to post bail and secure an Order of
Release. Obviously, however, he could only be
released if he has no other pending criminal case
requiring his continuous detention.

The criminal Informations against Bista for Violations

 of Article 125, RPC and COMELEC Resolution No.
3328 were filed with the Regional Trial Court and
Municipal Trial Court of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, on May
15, 2001 (Annexes “G” and “I”, Complaint-Affidavit of
Edimar Bista) but he was released from detention
only on June 8, 2001, on orders of the RTC and MTC
of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur (Annexes “J” and “K”,
Complaint-Affidavit). Was there a delay in the
delivery of the detained person to the proper judicial
authorities under the circumstances? The answer is
in the negative. The complaints against him was (sic)
seasonably filed in the court of justice within the
thirty-six (36)-hour period prescribed by law as
discussed above. The duty of the detaining officers is
deemed complied with upon the filing of the
complaints. Further action, like issuance of a
Release Order, then rests upon the judicial authority
(People v. Acosta [CA] 54 O.G. 4739).

Supreme Courts’ Final Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition dated 27 May 2002 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The Joint Resolution dated 31 January 2002 and the Order dated 25 March 2002 of the Office of the
Ombudsman are hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.